| | Ed,
It has been a long time since I read anything by Peck. I don’t remember reading that title. You say, “Peck talks about a successful intervention wherein he morally judged his patient.” I can see that. I’d want to know what his purpose was in that instance. I expect he had one. A therapist on the clock is (or should be) very purposeful in everything they say and do – they should be following a game plan put together for that client. I can imagine circumstances where passing moral judgment would be therapeutic and other situations where it would be a disaster.
I’m very thankful for my long association with Nathaniel Branden. I began reading his articles in the mid sixties, first saw him as he delivered an opening lecture for the Principles of Objectivism course in about 1967, went to him as a client for a short time in the early seventies, again in the eighties, attended dozens of his seminars and workshops, and then had the opportunity to work with him as a kind of apprentice for a year of self-esteem groups (while I was doing my intern hours for licensing). During that period, for about 3 hours, twice a week, I’d take notes on every word said – then later when I transcribed the notes, verifying and correcting from the audio tape, I’d ask myself things like “why did he say that?” “What was he doing in his mind to get to this point?” “What was he seeing or hearing that I didn’t?” I can’t tell you how much I learned from that. (Nathaniel grumbled at me one day, that he didn't want such long notes - he wanted more of summary. I felt bad that I wasn't giving him what he wanted, but I wasn't about to change such a rich study technique.)
I had set all of his theories aside (as best I could) when I attended grad school - to be as open as possible to the other ideas and approaches. I was struck by how nearly every one of the theoretical orientations had at least one marvelous insight into human nature or at least one good theraputic approach – but often very little else. Then I went back and reread all of his works. Wow, what a breath of fresh air!
One reason I mention all of this is that Nathaniel has written extensively on self-acceptance as a pillar of self-esteem. It is a corollary that the higher ones level of self-acceptance the more accepting of other they are likely to be. But, this isn’t unconditional acceptance in the sense of “without judging” - it is accepting the facts of reality – it is a feeling of comfort with something even if it isn’t something you like. It is accepting a judgment rather than avoiding, denying, or rationalizing it. This is a wonderful thing for a client to feel – that A) you see their flaws and shortcoming, B) you aren’t repulsed or punishing, C) you are on their side in the battle to diminish those negatives, and D) you are partnering-up with their strengths and good qualities in this effort, E) you are energizing realistic expectations for diminishing those shortcomings.
I’ve seen enormous growth in Nathaniel over the decades (and he was not someone who ‘needed’ much work to start with) and I suspect most of it is in the area of self-acceptance. He once remarked that he was coming to see the amount of improvement available in self-acceptance was infinite.
I liked Carl Rogers’ concept of self-actualization – very growth oriented and respectful of human potential. I liked the acceptance, but believe that a form of acceptance based upon judgments is far superior.
Steve
|
|
